"Lower power," perhaps, but still not low enough. I still want all-day usage.
Are there any computers that actually offer that? If there are any, are they comfortable enough to be used all day?
Quote:
As for DVDs, talk about being stuck in 2000. I can throw a DVD in my desktop Mac and have a 700MB Xvid movie file in less than an hour (two-pass encoding; halve that if you're satisifed with single pass) or a higher resolution two-pass H.264 file in less than two hours. Toss five of those movie files on a 4GB thumb drive and you've done away with the power-hungry DVD drive eating up battery life all through the movie. And a darn sight easier to carry around than five DVDs in their keepcases, too.
That the supposedly advanced way is a lot more work, for what? So I can feel advanced? I've done it a few times and I'm not happy with it. That's a lot more time, fiddling and processing power than I care to put into movies that I might only watch a couple times, as opposed to just sliding a disc in and playing it. Does dropping the drive really save more power than the additional CPU power consumed playing the file?
Yes it does. You can test it yourself by copying a Video_TS folder to your HDD.
But the suggested means involves recoding it to much more CPU-intensive codecs than MPEG-2. Is playing back an MPEG-4-based video file really going to be a lot more efficient than just playing a DVD?
But the suggested means involves recoding it to much more CPU-intensive codecs than MPEG-2. Is playing back an MPEG-4-based video file really going to be a lot more efficient than just playing a DVD?
If you copy the Video_TS folder to your HDD it's still MPEG-2. I've use this method many times. It's best to use VLC Player as it uses less resources than Apple's native playback options.
As for copying it to H.264 and then playing it with just the battery, you have a point, but I'd wager that the motor in the optical drive is still drawing a lot more than the processor. I'll try to test that tomorrow if I can't find any previous testing on it.
Are there any computers that actually offer that? If there are any, are they comfortable enough to be used all day?
Sony has had laptops that claim 12 hours per charge for years now. Even though reviews say it's actually closer to 9 hours, that's still all-day use if you ask me. Compare with the 4 hours of the Air in real-world testing.
Quote:
That the supposedly advanced way is a lot more work, for what? So I can feel advanced? I've done it a few times and I'm not happy with it. That's a lot more time, fiddling and processing power than I care to put into movies that I might only watch a couple times, as opposed to just sliding a disc in and playing it. Does dropping the drive really save more power than the additional CPU power consumed playing the file?
Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. Done it a few times, when? 2002? Drop a DVD in the drive. Launch Handbrake. Provide file destination path. Select file size or bitrate. Click "start." Gee, that's a lot of work. A couple of more steps if I decide to select AVC (H.264) and two-pass.
As for the second, you're really wrong. I just compared playing a DVD on Apple DVD Player with playing back an Xvid file on VLC. Guess what? The Xvid file took fewer CPU cycles, as much as 20% lower. Did you maybe stop to think that maybe Xvid achieves lower bitrates because it's a newer codec than the aging MPEG2 that's based on early 90s technology, not because it hogs more CPU? In fact, even a movie I encoded with AVC myself has the same CPU utilization as playing back a DVD. If you want to be lazy, that's your business, but don't use that as an excuse to keep everybody else chained to DVD drives. Most people don't need them.
Sony has had laptops that claim 12 hours per charge for years now. Even though reviews say it's actually closer to 9 hours, that's still all-day use if you ask me.
Sony is eiher usign a large weighty cell or a really slow processor for that 12 hour.claim. HP and Dell are jumping on that wagon with a respective 24 and 10 hour notebook.
PS: Sony recently announced plans to change its battery timing method from Jeita to Jeita's 'A'. Their previous method takes the mean average of the notebook running idle and it running a movie. The new method will only use the time from playing a movie. I'm not if the source is from DVD or HDD for this test.
Quote:
Compare with the 4 hours of the Air in real-world testing.
This dismal battery life it why I didn't get one.
Quote:
As for the second, you're really wrong. I just compared playing a DVD on Apple DVD Player with playing back an Xvid file on VLC. Guess what? The Xvid file took fewer CPU cycles, as much as 20% lower.
Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. Done it a few times, when? 2002? Drop a DVD in the drive. Launch Handbrake. Provide file destination path. Select file size or bitrate. Click "start." Gee, that's a lot of work. A couple of more steps if I decide to select AVC (H.264) and two-pass.
I have used handbrake, It's not just that, it's making sure the segment numbers are properly numbered, like episode number in a TV show, which differs from the title auto-numbering that handbrake does, especially on the second or later discs in the series. I have version 0.9.1 on my system right now. I don't really benefit from it enough to balance out the pre-load CPU power. It's not like a CD where it's the opposite, just five minutes and it might be played many dozens of times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
As for the second, you're really wrong. I just compared playing a DVD on Apple DVD Player with playing back an Xvid file on VLC. Guess what? The Xvid file took fewer CPU cycles, as much as 20% lower. Did you maybe stop to think that maybe Xvid achieves lower bitrates because it's a newer codec than the aging MPEG2 that's based on early 90s technology, not because it hogs more CPU?
Newer, higher entropy codecs generally take more computational power than older ones. If the encoding cuts out a lot of detail during the conversion, then it's easily conceivable that much of the savings is due to playing a lower quality file.
I can play a 20Mbps MPEG-2 HD stream just fine. The same computer stutters on a 4.5Mbps HD show from itunes.
Quote:
If you want to be lazy, that's your business, but don't use that as an excuse to keep everybody else chained to DVD drives. Most people don't need them.
I think you're overreacting by quite a bit. When have I said that others had to be "chained" to a DVD drive? All I said is that's why I'm not interested in the machines in question. My not buying such a notebook does not mean I am saying you're not allowed to buy one, I don't remember ever saying anything to that effect, I certainly don't see anything like that on the post where I mentioned my purchase choice.
You are 100% wrong. It is custom chip made specifically for the MBA.
The chip is new as it using the small form factor, but it wasn't technically made for the MBA. INtel had designed it and then shelved it. Apple came along and asked for something smaller than typical chip. There are now other OEMs using this exact same chip in their ultra-light portables.
You are 100% wrong. It is custom chip made specifically for the MBA.
It's a old chip that intel combined with an old project to reduce the chip carrier size. It's not custom for the MBA, but Apple caused the project to be resurrected. I'm sure it's available to anyone who wants it.
The chip is new as it using the small form factor, but it wasn't technically made for the MBA. INtel had designed it and then shelved it. Apple came along and asked for something smaller than typical chip. There are now other OEMs using this exact same chip in their ultra-light portables.
The chip itself is old but the package and the board that it sits on is new but was designed some time ago. Not that any of it is important other than for marketing.
You're in luck, the update will bring a 120GB HDD standard, and within 6 months you'll see a 160GB SSD for an estimated $1000 more.
The main deal breaker for me is the low yield battery combined with the lack of a removable battery. I don't mind the fixed battery, but I better get at least 8 hour if you are going to do that. Now there are other options that will run OS X when I'm away so the MBA isn't even in a consideration anymore.
120 GB? Still not enough disk space. This is the year 2008 for cryin' out loud. So we will have to wait another six months past the next update - whenever *that* will be.
I agree with you on the non-removable battery issue. I'm spoiled in that I typically carry one spare battery with me which takes seconds to swap out, even in an airline seat.
Looks like I'll be using my trusty old MBP for quite a bit longer. Or the new MBP, whenever that comes out.
You are arguing that a smaller footprint on the MBA would still mean it could be as useful even with a small screen and keyboard. You might be willing to sacrifice full size keys because you have small hands or don't type much or some other reason, but there are plenty of people who type all day and don't want a half size keys and an 8" display to do important work on. To change that aspect would change the market it's aimed for. Netbooks have their purpose, but they are not designed for that.
I'm arguing smaller is better, as long as the trade-offs are not a deal-breaker. For many people smaller keyboards are not a problem. I hunt and peck so smaller than full-sized is not going to get in the way. Most people are not touch typists. The biggest issue for me is changing between smaller and larger keyboards, for instance when I use a laptop and desktop. That problem could be solved by having a BT or USB reduced size keyboard.
You're saying netbooks don't cut it for "serious" work. You're not in a position to say that since it's an individual preference. Everyone works differently. You can only speak for yourself in that regard.
The bottom line is that Apple should make a smaller laptop and let the market decide, just as they have with the Air. The problem is that at the moment Apple seems to only favour "thin" things and as an optical illusion at that, rather than truly small (in other dimensions). Appearance is important, but not at the cost of functionality.
The processors in the is only around $284 and $316, while the fastest Atom chips are $70 and $135. Coincidently, the Atom chips are the same respective speeds as the current Air, but the drop in performance would make it incredibly slow. This would be a very costly change and completely alter the market it's aimed at. There is plenty of room for Apple to keep the MBA at the top end of an ultra-lightweight notebook and have a UMPC for a tablet Mac using Atom. They don't have to destroy one to make the other.
I had a nice reply for you but Safari still crashes a lot on iPhone.
In any event what I was going to say in a nut shell is that it is not a given that AIRs performance would be worst with Atom. The current problem with AIR performance is processor throttling. If a dual or tripple core Atom can run flat out all the time it might be a better alternative to the mainstream notebook CPU. Especially a notebook CPU that only runs half speed due to throttling.
A good test for the feasability of a new AIR would be it's ability to run Apples own HD video content. Like it or not half the laptops you see running on modern air planes are being used to view movies. Not that I blame the movie viewers as gettingnreal work done on a plane is difficult to say the least.
The only thing left if addressing storage issues. Unfortunately I think we are more than a generation off here. 128 GB SSD or 160 GB HDD just aren't enough space for most users.
In some ways you can look at AIR and it's enclosure as simple being a bit to far ahead of the tech curve. Once they can implement reliable performance and address the common complaints they might actually sell. Well that and address the rediculous price.
The only thing "high end" about the MBA is the price. Performance-wise it is a LOW END box for low end usages. Of course the high price is limiting to sales. This fits with Apple's public model of building expensive 1G then evolve to 2G at lower price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Obviously some can't undertsand that smaller is the thing...
I agree that Apple should (and probably will) address the ~12" market segment; but only for a few folks is "smaller the thing." E.g. among PBs, how much market share did the low end 12" PB have? The fact is that most folks want screen real estate, pixels and performance from a laptop to faciliate productive work.
The MacBook Air isn't selling because it's priced $1,100 to much. Think outside the Apple for a second, it uses less material, it has less ports, a slower processor than the MacBook, takes less RAM, can't change the battery and no optical drive? MMMMM should cost less too huh?
MacBook should cost $999 since that was the price of the iBook it replaced, which cost more to make by the way. So the Air should start at $700.
I think those price reductions for the ipods were just the beginning. I think the "part II" macbook event coming on October 14th is ALSO going to have major price reductions. Perhaps that $1,100 your talking about is going to get trimmed off!
Not to mention similar trimmings on the rest of the macbooks. October 14th fast approaches.......and its also happens to be my BIRTHDAY BOOYaAAAAA!!!!!!
The only thing "high end" about the MBA is the price. Performance-wise it is a LOW END box for low end usages. Of course the high price is limiting to sales. This fits with Apple's public model of building expensive 1G then evolve to 2G at lower price.
I agree that Apple should (and probably will) address the ~12" market segment; but only for a few folks is "smaller the thing." E.g. among PBs, how much market share did the low end 12" PB have? The fact is that most folks want screen real estate, pixels and performance from a laptop to faciliate productive work.
-Allen Wicks
I think you can shrink down the MBA a lot more without reducing the screen size too much. Have a look at that thick border around the LCD. My old Titatnium Powerbook circa 2001 has a border around 5mm or so. Time to bring that back.
I had a nice reply for you but Safari still crashes a lot on iPhone.
In any event what I was going to say in a nut shell is that it is not a given that AIRs performance would be worst with Atom. The current problem with AIR performance is processor throttling. If a dual or tripple core Atom can run flat out all the time it might be a better alternative to the mainstream notebook CPU. Especially a notebook CPU that only runs half speed due to throttling.
A good test for the feasability of a new AIR would be it's ability to run Apples own HD video content. Like it or not half the laptops you see running on modern air planes are being used to view movies. Not that I blame the movie viewers as gettingnreal work done on a plane is difficult to say the least.
The only thing left if addressing storage issues. Unfortunately I think we are more than a generation off here. 128 GB SSD or 160 GB HDD just aren't enough space for most users.
In some ways you can look at AIR and it's enclosure as simple being a bit to far ahead of the tech curve. Once they can implement reliable performance and address the common complaints they might actually sell. Well that and address the rediculous price.
Dave
I had a nice reply for you, too, but my Safari browser froze up my phone and required a restart. \
I'm not going to redo my post about the Air because I'm sure it'll be updated to a lower TDP chip in a few weeks and we'll probably have another opportunity to debate it.
But I will re-comment on the storage capacity. The next Air will get the 120GB HDD that is in the Classic. 160GB won't happen. There are 128GB SSD in the 2.5" size, but I don't know of any in the thin 1.8" size. And we have to wonder if Apple would use these if the speed and reliability is poor, as we've seen in some SSD drives. I think that the capacity is fine for most people. This isn't marketed as your only computer and I know plenty of people with full size 2" thick notebooks that don't have more than 160GB. I bought a black MacBook in 2007 and it came with a 120GB HDD. You could upgrade to 160GB. That was a year ago. Now I have another black MB that came with a 160GB HDD. That was earlier this year. I think 120GB for notebook that is designed specifically for the traveling business person it excellent.
As for being ahead of the tech curve, I agree wholeheartedly. That small package with a C2D chip has the unfortunate drawback of requiring more wattage than if it was on the normal size package. This limitation has been eliminated with Montevina. It's unfortunate, but being too far ahead of the tech curve is bad for business. Apple obviously knew of Intel's roadmap and knew the issues with using a SFF Santa Rosa/Merom so I can't help but wonder if the MBA was a testing ground or Apple trying to be the first to market with this new notebook.
The MBA is made for the I-want-a-full-computer-as-small-as-possible market. That is not the netbook market. However, since Apple doesn't make netbooks, it is effectively also competing there. Since it is designed with entirely different goals, it's no wonder it doesn't seem competitive there. But it is pretty competitive in its own market. Don't mix those two markets up, or you'll end up arguing about nothing.
Also, the general appeal of the MBA is low. Naturally. The MB is cheaper, does the same things, and is just a little bulkier. Few people are willing to pay that much premium for a thinner notebook. But that's not news, it was obvious from the start. It was still profitable. The question now, however, is whether this interest is declining. Please don't argue that the interest was low to begin with! You've missed the point.
I agree.... The consumer market for that type of laptop is so small to begin, this news isn't surprising.
I never could figure out the market for the Air. Why pay so much money for a laptop of limited functionality just because it is skinny? Why does Apple care about having bragging rights for the world's thinnest computer? How often do you need to put a laptop in an envelope?
Comments
"Lower power," perhaps, but still not low enough. I still want all-day usage.
Are there any computers that actually offer that? If there are any, are they comfortable enough to be used all day?
As for DVDs, talk about being stuck in 2000. I can throw a DVD in my desktop Mac and have a 700MB Xvid movie file in less than an hour (two-pass encoding; halve that if you're satisifed with single pass) or a higher resolution two-pass H.264 file in less than two hours. Toss five of those movie files on a 4GB thumb drive and you've done away with the power-hungry DVD drive eating up battery life all through the movie. And a darn sight easier to carry around than five DVDs in their keepcases, too.
That the supposedly advanced way is a lot more work, for what? So I can feel advanced? I've done it a few times and I'm not happy with it. That's a lot more time, fiddling and processing power than I care to put into movies that I might only watch a couple times, as opposed to just sliding a disc in and playing it. Does dropping the drive really save more power than the additional CPU power consumed playing the file?
Does dropping the drive really save more power than the additional CPU power consumed playing the file?
Yes it does. You can test it yourself by copying a Video_TS folder to your HDD.
Yes it does. You can test it yourself by copying a Video_TS folder to your HDD.
But the suggested means involves recoding it to much more CPU-intensive codecs than MPEG-2. Is playing back an MPEG-4-based video file really going to be a lot more efficient than just playing a DVD?
But the suggested means involves recoding it to much more CPU-intensive codecs than MPEG-2. Is playing back an MPEG-4-based video file really going to be a lot more efficient than just playing a DVD?
If you copy the Video_TS folder to your HDD it's still MPEG-2. I've use this method many times. It's best to use VLC Player as it uses less resources than Apple's native playback options.
As for copying it to H.264 and then playing it with just the battery, you have a point, but I'd wager that the motor in the optical drive is still drawing a lot more than the processor. I'll try to test that tomorrow if I can't find any previous testing on it.
Are there any computers that actually offer that? If there are any, are they comfortable enough to be used all day?
Sony has had laptops that claim 12 hours per charge for years now. Even though reviews say it's actually closer to 9 hours, that's still all-day use if you ask me. Compare with the 4 hours of the Air in real-world testing.
That the supposedly advanced way is a lot more work, for what? So I can feel advanced? I've done it a few times and I'm not happy with it. That's a lot more time, fiddling and processing power than I care to put into movies that I might only watch a couple times, as opposed to just sliding a disc in and playing it. Does dropping the drive really save more power than the additional CPU power consumed playing the file?
Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. Done it a few times, when? 2002? Drop a DVD in the drive. Launch Handbrake. Provide file destination path. Select file size or bitrate. Click "start." Gee, that's a lot of work. A couple of more steps if I decide to select AVC (H.264) and two-pass.
As for the second, you're really wrong. I just compared playing a DVD on Apple DVD Player with playing back an Xvid file on VLC. Guess what? The Xvid file took fewer CPU cycles, as much as 20% lower. Did you maybe stop to think that maybe Xvid achieves lower bitrates because it's a newer codec than the aging MPEG2 that's based on early 90s technology, not because it hogs more CPU? In fact, even a movie I encoded with AVC myself has the same CPU utilization as playing back a DVD. If you want to be lazy, that's your business, but don't use that as an excuse to keep everybody else chained to DVD drives. Most people don't need them.
Sony has had laptops that claim 12 hours per charge for years now. Even though reviews say it's actually closer to 9 hours, that's still all-day use if you ask me.
Sony is eiher usign a large weighty cell or a really slow processor for that 12 hour.claim. HP and Dell are jumping on that wagon with a respective 24 and 10 hour notebook. PS: Sony recently announced plans to change its battery timing method from Jeita to Jeita's 'A'. Their previous method takes the mean average of the notebook running idle and it running a movie. The new method will only use the time from playing a movie. I'm not if the source is from DVD or HDD for this test.
Compare with the 4 hours of the Air in real-world testing.
This dismal battery life it why I didn't get one.
As for the second, you're really wrong. I just compared playing a DVD on Apple DVD Player with playing back an Xvid file on VLC. Guess what? The Xvid file took fewer CPU cycles, as much as 20% lower.
What about playing that DVD via VLC?
Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. Done it a few times, when? 2002? Drop a DVD in the drive. Launch Handbrake. Provide file destination path. Select file size or bitrate. Click "start." Gee, that's a lot of work. A couple of more steps if I decide to select AVC (H.264) and two-pass.
I have used handbrake, It's not just that, it's making sure the segment numbers are properly numbered, like episode number in a TV show, which differs from the title auto-numbering that handbrake does, especially on the second or later discs in the series. I have version 0.9.1 on my system right now. I don't really benefit from it enough to balance out the pre-load CPU power. It's not like a CD where it's the opposite, just five minutes and it might be played many dozens of times.
As for the second, you're really wrong. I just compared playing a DVD on Apple DVD Player with playing back an Xvid file on VLC. Guess what? The Xvid file took fewer CPU cycles, as much as 20% lower. Did you maybe stop to think that maybe Xvid achieves lower bitrates because it's a newer codec than the aging MPEG2 that's based on early 90s technology, not because it hogs more CPU?
Newer, higher entropy codecs generally take more computational power than older ones. If the encoding cuts out a lot of detail during the conversion, then it's easily conceivable that much of the savings is due to playing a lower quality file.
I can play a 20Mbps MPEG-2 HD stream just fine. The same computer stutters on a 4.5Mbps HD show from itunes.
If you want to be lazy, that's your business, but don't use that as an excuse to keep everybody else chained to DVD drives. Most people don't need them.
I think you're overreacting by quite a bit. When have I said that others had to be "chained" to a DVD drive? All I said is that's why I'm not interested in the machines in question. My not buying such a notebook does not mean I am saying you're not allowed to buy one, I don't remember ever saying anything to that effect, I certainly don't see anything like that on the post where I mentioned my purchase choice.
You are 100% wrong. It is custom chip made specifically for the MBA.
The chip is new as it using the small form factor, but it wasn't technically made for the MBA. INtel had designed it and then shelved it. Apple came along and asked for something smaller than typical chip. There are now other OEMs using this exact same chip in their ultra-light portables.
You are 100% wrong. It is custom chip made specifically for the MBA.
It's a old chip that intel combined with an old project to reduce the chip carrier size. It's not custom for the MBA, but Apple caused the project to be resurrected. I'm sure it's available to anyone who wants it.
The chip is new as it using the small form factor, but it wasn't technically made for the MBA. INtel had designed it and then shelved it. Apple came along and asked for something smaller than typical chip. There are now other OEMs using this exact same chip in their ultra-light portables.
The chip itself is old but the package and the board that it sits on is new but was designed some time ago. Not that any of it is important other than for marketing.
You're in luck, the update will bring a 120GB HDD standard, and within 6 months you'll see a 160GB SSD for an estimated $1000 more.
The main deal breaker for me is the low yield battery combined with the lack of a removable battery. I don't mind the fixed battery, but I better get at least 8 hour if you are going to do that. Now there are other options that will run OS X when I'm away so the MBA isn't even in a consideration anymore.
120 GB? Still not enough disk space. This is the year 2008 for cryin' out loud. So we will have to wait another six months past the next update - whenever *that* will be.
I agree with you on the non-removable battery issue. I'm spoiled in that I typically carry one spare battery with me which takes seconds to swap out, even in an airline seat.
Looks like I'll be using my trusty old MBP for quite a bit longer. Or the new MBP, whenever that comes out.
Joe
You are arguing that a smaller footprint on the MBA would still mean it could be as useful even with a small screen and keyboard. You might be willing to sacrifice full size keys because you have small hands or don't type much or some other reason, but there are plenty of people who type all day and don't want a half size keys and an 8" display to do important work on. To change that aspect would change the market it's aimed for. Netbooks have their purpose, but they are not designed for that.
I'm arguing smaller is better, as long as the trade-offs are not a deal-breaker. For many people smaller keyboards are not a problem. I hunt and peck so smaller than full-sized is not going to get in the way. Most people are not touch typists. The biggest issue for me is changing between smaller and larger keyboards, for instance when I use a laptop and desktop. That problem could be solved by having a BT or USB reduced size keyboard.
You're saying netbooks don't cut it for "serious" work. You're not in a position to say that since it's an individual preference. Everyone works differently. You can only speak for yourself in that regard.
The bottom line is that Apple should make a smaller laptop and let the market decide, just as they have with the Air. The problem is that at the moment Apple seems to only favour "thin" things and as an optical illusion at that, rather than truly small (in other dimensions). Appearance is important, but not at the cost of functionality.
The processors in the is only around $284 and $316, while the fastest Atom chips are $70 and $135. Coincidently, the Atom chips are the same respective speeds as the current Air, but the drop in performance would make it incredibly slow. This would be a very costly change and completely alter the market it's aimed at. There is plenty of room for Apple to keep the MBA at the top end of an ultra-lightweight notebook and have a UMPC for a tablet Mac using Atom. They don't have to destroy one to make the other.
I had a nice reply for you but Safari still crashes a lot on iPhone.
In any event what I was going to say in a nut shell is that it is not a given that AIRs performance would be worst with Atom. The current problem with AIR performance is processor throttling. If a dual or tripple core Atom can run flat out all the time it might be a better alternative to the mainstream notebook CPU. Especially a notebook CPU that only runs half speed due to throttling.
A good test for the feasability of a new AIR would be it's ability to run Apples own HD video content. Like it or not half the laptops you see running on modern air planes are being used to view movies. Not that I blame the movie viewers as gettingnreal work done on a plane is difficult to say the least.
The only thing left if addressing storage issues. Unfortunately I think we are more than a generation off here. 128 GB SSD or 160 GB HDD just aren't enough space for most users.
In some ways you can look at AIR and it's enclosure as simple being a bit to far ahead of the tech curve. Once they can implement reliable performance and address the common complaints they might actually sell. Well that and address the rediculous price.
Dave
Obviously some can't undertsand that smaller is the thing...
I agree that Apple should (and probably will) address the ~12" market segment; but only for a few folks is "smaller the thing." E.g. among PBs, how much market share did the low end 12" PB have? The fact is that most folks want screen real estate, pixels and performance from a laptop to faciliate productive work.
-Allen Wicks
The MacBook Air isn't selling because it's priced $1,100 to much. Think outside the Apple for a second, it uses less material, it has less ports, a slower processor than the MacBook, takes less RAM, can't change the battery and no optical drive? MMMMM should cost less too huh?
MacBook should cost $999 since that was the price of the iBook it replaced, which cost more to make by the way. So the Air should start at $700.
I think those price reductions for the ipods were just the beginning. I think the "part II" macbook event coming on October 14th is ALSO going to have major price reductions. Perhaps that $1,100 your talking about is going to get trimmed off!
Not to mention similar trimmings on the rest of the macbooks. October 14th fast approaches.......and its also happens to be my BIRTHDAY BOOYaAAAAA!!!!!!
The only thing "high end" about the MBA is the price. Performance-wise it is a LOW END box for low end usages. Of course the high price is limiting to sales. This fits with Apple's public model of building expensive 1G then evolve to 2G at lower price.
I agree that Apple should (and probably will) address the ~12" market segment; but only for a few folks is "smaller the thing." E.g. among PBs, how much market share did the low end 12" PB have? The fact is that most folks want screen real estate, pixels and performance from a laptop to faciliate productive work.
-Allen Wicks
I think you can shrink down the MBA a lot more without reducing the screen size too much. Have a look at that thick border around the LCD. My old Titatnium Powerbook circa 2001 has a border around 5mm or so. Time to bring that back.
I had a nice reply for you but Safari still crashes a lot on iPhone.
In any event what I was going to say in a nut shell is that it is not a given that AIRs performance would be worst with Atom. The current problem with AIR performance is processor throttling. If a dual or tripple core Atom can run flat out all the time it might be a better alternative to the mainstream notebook CPU. Especially a notebook CPU that only runs half speed due to throttling.
A good test for the feasability of a new AIR would be it's ability to run Apples own HD video content. Like it or not half the laptops you see running on modern air planes are being used to view movies. Not that I blame the movie viewers as gettingnreal work done on a plane is difficult to say the least.
The only thing left if addressing storage issues. Unfortunately I think we are more than a generation off here. 128 GB SSD or 160 GB HDD just aren't enough space for most users.
In some ways you can look at AIR and it's enclosure as simple being a bit to far ahead of the tech curve. Once they can implement reliable performance and address the common complaints they might actually sell. Well that and address the rediculous price.
Dave
I had a nice reply for you, too, but my Safari browser froze up my phone and required a restart.
I'm not going to redo my post about the Air because I'm sure it'll be updated to a lower TDP chip in a few weeks and we'll probably have another opportunity to debate it.
But I will re-comment on the storage capacity. The next Air will get the 120GB HDD that is in the Classic. 160GB won't happen. There are 128GB SSD in the 2.5" size, but I don't know of any in the thin 1.8" size. And we have to wonder if Apple would use these if the speed and reliability is poor, as we've seen in some SSD drives. I think that the capacity is fine for most people. This isn't marketed as your only computer and I know plenty of people with full size 2" thick notebooks that don't have more than 160GB. I bought a black MacBook in 2007 and it came with a 120GB HDD. You could upgrade to 160GB. That was a year ago. Now I have another black MB that came with a 160GB HDD. That was earlier this year. I think 120GB for notebook that is designed specifically for the traveling business person it excellent.
As for being ahead of the tech curve, I agree wholeheartedly. That small package with a C2D chip has the unfortunate drawback of requiring more wattage than if it was on the normal size package. This limitation has been eliminated with Montevina. It's unfortunate, but being too far ahead of the tech curve is bad for business. Apple obviously knew of Intel's roadmap and knew the issues with using a SFF Santa Rosa/Merom so I can't help but wonder if the MBA was a testing ground or Apple trying to be the first to market with this new notebook.
Sales of the MB Air have far exceeded those of its PC "competitors".
Corporate sales of the MB Air have also been far greater than those sales of its PC "competitors".
The MB Air is being used more in Windows environments than the ThinkPad X300.
Give the MB Air a break!
It is a revolutionary product, not an evolutionary one.
If you want more ports and an optical drive, buy a MacBook Pro.
If you do not like it, do not buy it. However, senior corporate executives and consumers, who can afford it, love it!
Shaw Wu needs to read more.
Also, the general appeal of the MBA is low. Naturally. The MB is cheaper, does the same things, and is just a little bulkier. Few people are willing to pay that much premium for a thinner notebook. But that's not news, it was obvious from the start. It was still profitable. The question now, however, is whether this interest is declining. Please don't argue that the interest was low to begin with! You've missed the point.
I agree.... The consumer market for that type of laptop is so small to begin, this news isn't surprising.
I never could figure out the market for the Air. Why pay so much money for a laptop of limited functionality just because it is skinny? Why does Apple care about having bragging rights for the world's thinnest computer? How often do you need to put a laptop in an envelope?